Consumer anger

56 Pages·2017·1.18 MB·English

European Journal of Marketing

E

u

r

oConsumer anger: A label in search of meaning

p
eJournal: European Journal of Marketing
Manuascript ID EJM-08-2015-0590.R3
Manuscript Type: Original Article
n

Keywords: Anger, Outrage, Contempt, Consumer revenge, Boycott, Service failure
J
o
u
r

n
a
l

o
f

M
a
r
k
e
t
i
n
g
Page 1 of 54 European Journal of Marketing
1
2
3 Consumer anger: A label in search of meaning
4
5
6
7
Abstract
E
8
9
u
10
Purpose – The paper proposes a new conceptualisation of consumer anger directed against a
11 r
12
company.
13 o
14
15 p
Design/methodology/approach – An integrative review of the literature on anger in
16
e
17
18 marketing is conducted.
a
19
20
n
21 Findings – Anger at the firm is experienced in two forms: vengeful anger or problem-focused

22
23 anger. The motivational gJoals associated with each differentiate between the two types and
24
25 lead to different relational conosequences: vengeful anger implies a desire to hurt the culprit
26
27 u
while problem-focused anger requires solely the attainment of a thwarted goal. The two types
28
r
29
30 are associated with different patternsn of appraisals, levels of intensity, and emotion
31
32 expression. These differences, documented ian the literature, are not universal but shaped by
33 l
34 contextual and personal variables. Although mar keters conflate these two types of anger
35
36 o
under the same label, only vengeful anger represents a threat to marketing relationships while
37 f
38
problem-focused anger has positive consequences if managed appropriately.
39
40
M
41
Research implications – Studies that examine anger will benefit from a more nuanced
42 a
43
r
44 understanding of this concept. This paper raises important implications for the measurement
45
k
46 of this emotion since existing scales are not able to measure the goals associated with the two
47 e
48 types of anger. t
49 i
50
51 n
Practical implications – The insights presented help managers form strategies to address
52
53 g
consumer anger in contexts such as service failures and/or crisis communications.
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 1
European Journal of Marketing Page 2 of 54
1
2
3 Originality/value – The paper extends scholars’ understanding of consumer anger. It offers
4
5 an improved conceptualisation of this emotion, opening new avenues for future research.
6
7
E
8 Keywords Anger, Outrage, Contempt, Consumer revenge, Boycott, Service failure
9
u
10
11 Parper type Literature review
12
13 o
14

15 p
16
e
17
18
a
19
20
n
21

22
23 J
24
25 o
26
27 u
28
r
29
30 n
31
32 a
33 l
34
35
36 o
37 f
38
39
40
M
41
42 a
43
r
44
45
k
46
47 e
48 t
49 i
50
51 n
52
53 g
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 2
Page 3 of 54 European Journal of Marketing
1
2
3 Introduction
4
5
6 Over the last two decades, marketers have examined exit decisions (Hirschman, 1970),
7
E
8 customer complaints (Grégoire and Fisher, 2008), negative word-of-mouth (Wetzer et al.,
9
u
10
2007), and participation in organized protests (Bougie et al., 2003). Anger, and related
11 r
12
negative emotions (Romani et al., 2012; Shaver et al., 1987), play an important role in these
13 o
14
15 contexts. pConsidering its motivational role in retaliation and aggression (Berkowitz and
16
e
17 Harmon-Jones, 2004), marketers adopt anger as a key mediator in explaining consumer
18
a
19
revenge (Bechwati and Morrin, 2003; Grégoire et al., 2010).
20
n
21

22
A significant body of work explores the nature and potential consequences of anger at the
23 J
24
firm in a marketing context. Consumer anger is caused by different types of violations
25 o
26
27 (Bougie et al., 2004; Grappi et ual., 2013b) and triggers negative consequences for the
28
r
29 organization (Romani et al., 2012; Wetzer et al., 2007). The existing research, however,
30 n
31 belongs to different domains and presents a complex picture. While some argue that anger
32 a
33 l
has a key role in explaining consumers’ vindictiveness and a desire to hurt the company
34
35
36 (Grégoire et al., 2010; Wetzer et al., 2007), others haove maintained that the emotion is mostly
37 f
38 focused on the attainment of exchange goals and ca n help foster productive market
39
40 relationships (Romani et al., 2013). M
41
42 a
43 This study offers an integrative review of consumer anger literature to 1) summarise the
r
44
45
existing body of knowledge produced across different research fkields, 2) clarify the
46
47 e
conceptualisation of this emotion, 3) reconcile presumed inconsistencies in existing research,
48 t
49 i
50 and 4) identify gaps in current knowledge. It is argued that anger at the firm is best
51 n
52 conceptualised as occurring in two different types: vengeful anger and problem-focused anger
53 g
54
differentiated on the basis of their motivational goals and the consequences the goals generate
55
56
for consumer-company relationships (Lazarus, 1991; Roseman et al., 1994). These goals co-
57
58
59
60 3
European Journal of Marketing Page 4 of 54
1
2
3 exist with the emotional experience (Kappas, 2006) but current marketing research fails to
4
5 outline their importance. While vengeful anger leads to the desire to hurt the company, either
6
7
directly or indirectly, problem-focused anger focuses attention on a specific outcome that is
E
8
9
ubeing frustrated. This second form of anger, if managed adequately, can benefit organizations
10
11 r
12 and is not a relational threat. Furthermore, the review reveals an association between these
13 o
14 two types and distinct appraisals, arousal levels, forms of emotion expression and different
15 p
16
behaviours. These components mix to form different anger scripts characterizing consumer
e
17
18
reactions in mosta situations.
19
20
n
21
A better understanding o f anger will assist managers in predicting consumer behaviour and
22
23 J
24 plan adequate responses. Current scales have no reliable way of differentiating between these
25 o
26 two forms of anger. The paper demonstrates that accurate measures of anger in a marketing
27 u
28 context need to include also an evaluration of the goals that are activated by the emotional
29
30 experience. Several propositions are prensented and their implications for future research are
31
32 a
discussed in detail.
33 l
34
35
36 o
37 f
38
Approach to the review
39
40
M
41
This study integrates evidence from different research areas. The analysis started by
42 a
43
r
44 deploying a search string - (anger OR rage OR outrage OR animosity OR annoyance OR
45
k
46 displeasure) AND (customer OR consumer) - on the academic databases EBSCO Business
47 e
48 t
Source Complete and ABI/INFORM Global. This process identified 126 articles that include
49 i
50
anger as one of the main variables analysed and have appeared in leading journals including
51 n
52
53 the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Journal of Consumer Resgearch,
54
55 International Journal of Research in Marketing, International Journal of Business Studies,
56
57
Journal of Consumer Psychology, Journal of Service Research, Journal of Business
58
59
60 4
Page 5 of 54 European Journal of Marketing
1
2
3 Research, European Journal of Marketing, Marketing Letters, Psychology & Marketing, and
4
5 the Journal of Business Ethics. The papers belong to four research domains: consumer
6
7
animosity in international marketing (37 papers), anger at service failure and/or service
E
8
9
uemployees (48 papers), anger as a consequence of unethical corporate behaviour (16 papers)
10
11 r
12 and anger in consumer psychology (25 papers). While reading these papers, 68 additional
13 o
14 manuscripts were added as relevant to the study (Dixon-Woods et al., 2006). This generated a
15 p
16
total of 193 peer-reviewed manuscripts which form the bulk of the data reviewed in this study
e
17
18
covering a perioda from 1976 to 2015.
19
20
n
21
In a second less structu red review stage, the evidence from marketing was complemented
22
23 J
24 with literature outside the discipline. This process involved 83 articles and/or book chapters
25 o
26 on anger that were identified through 1) searches on leading journals in social psychology,
27 u
28 and 2) searches on the references crited by marketing manuscripts1. Initially the review
29
30 focused on the seminal articles from socinal psychology. Subsequently, the focus extended to a
31
32 a
broader review of work by key authors (e.g. Frijda, Lazarus, Roseman, Russell) as well as
33 l
34
35 papers from journals focusing on emotions (e.g. Cognition and Emotion, Emotion, Emotion
36 o
37 Review). f
38
39
40 The process was concluded once theoretical saturation (BowMen, 2008) allowed explaining the
41
42 findings in the literature without the need of additional insights. a
43
r
44
45
k
46
47 e
48 t
Anger at the firm: the need for a re-conceptualisation
49 i
50
51 n
Anger in marketing: one emotion, many definitions
52
53 g
54
Appraisal theories see anger as differentiated from other emotions on several cognitive
55
56
dimensions (Roseman et al., 1990; Scherer, 1988). Anger is experienced when individuals
57
58
59
60 5
European Journal of Marketing Page 6 of 54
1
2
3 appraise a negative outcome which is perceived as caused by others (Roseman et al., 1990).
4
5 However, research has demonstrated that, while only these two appraisals are necessary to
6
7
feel anger (Kuppens et al., 2003; Van Mechelen and Hennes, 2009), many other dimensions
E
8
9
ucan contribute to shape anger experiences (Roseman, 2004). Anger is also shaped by the
10
11 r
12 social and cultural context in significant ways (Russell and Fehr, 1994; Tombs et al., 2014).
13 o
14
15 Marketersp adopt several different definitions of anger. Table 1 offers a sample of definitions
16
e
17 from research on service failures. Although a number of traits are common across definitions,
18
a
19
there are also significant differences. Some authors see aggression as a constitutive
20
n
21
component (e.g. #1). Eq ually blame attribution is cited (e.g. #4, #5 and #6) while some
22
23 J
24 emphasise fairness judgments (e.g. #3). Finally, for some anger is a high arousal emotion
25 o
26 (e.g. #1). These examples illustrate a common trend: the definitions are not contradictory but
27 u
28 they demonstrate how anger can haver different meanings depending on the context analysed
29
30 (Lazarus, 1991; p. 824). n
31
32 a
33 l

34
35
36 o
INSERT TABLE 1 HERE
37 f
38
39

40
M
41
42 a
Anger-related emotions in marketing
43
r
44
45
k
Table 2 reviews emotions related to anger. A few studies focus on annoyance (Han et al.,
46
47 e
48 2010; Lee and McGowan, 1998) and frustration (Gelbrich, 2010; Patterson et atl., 2009; Van
49 i
50 Steenburg et al., 2013). These are negative experiences usually less intense than anger
51 n
52 (Kalamas et al., 2008) and less influenced by blame attributions (Gelbrich, 2010). Anxiety
53 g
54
can cause anger (Taylor, 1994) and lead to a sense of dissatisfaction with the firm which can
55
56
turn into anger (Maute and Dubé, 1999; Menon and Dubé, 2000). This emotion, similar to
57
58
59
60 6
Page 7 of 54 European Journal of Marketing
1
2
3 annoyance and frustration, is not intense enough to cause vindictiveness and is associated
4
5 with uncertainty which defuses the urge for confrontation (Patterson et al., 2009;
6
7
Surachartkumtonkun et al., 2015).
E
8
9
u
10
Conversely, consumer rage (Grove et al., 2012; McColl-Kennedy et al., 2009) and outrage
11 r
12
(Gelbrich, 2011) trigger a desire to hurt the firm. Anger as a trigger of confrontation is
13 o
14
15 integral top rage (Grove et al., 2004; McColl-Kennedy et al., 2009; Surachartkumtonkun et al.,
16
e
17 2015). The appraisals shaping this form of anger confer a different meaning to the experience
18
a
19
and create different expectations (Frijda 1993; Parkinson and Manstead 1993; Roseman
20
n
21
1991). Customer rage o ccurs as the outcome of repeated failures and involves several
22
23 J
24 negative states (Surachartkumtonkun et al., 2015). There is also research examining contempt
25 o
26 and disgust following irresponsible corporate behaviour. These feelings are activated by
27 u
28 specific violations and trigger differernt responses. Contempt triggers a desire to hurt the
29
30 company while the role of disgust apnpears less clear (Romani et al., 2013). Finally,
31
32 a
researchers examine anger triggered by justice violations (Antonetti and Maklan, 2014;
33 l
34
35 Lindenmeier et al., 2012) reinforcing the evidence of the moral relevance of this emotion
36 o
37 (Darley and Pittman, 2003). f
38
39
40 Although these emotions have unique features, they are Mclosely linked with anger. The
41
42 boundaries between experiences are contextual and difficult to ageneralize: different scripts
43
r
44
apply to varying circumstances (Barrett et al., 2007).
45
k
46
47 e

48 t
49 i
50
INSERT TABLE 2 HERE
51 n
52
53 g

54
55
56
Revisiting anger’s conceptualisation
57
58
59
60 7
European Journal of Marketing Page 8 of 54
1
2
3 Although the diversity of anger experiences has been acknowledged in psychology (Kuppens
4
5 et al., 2004; Russell and Barrett, 1999; Russell and Fehr, 1994), this characteristic is less
6
7
understood in marketing research. When reporting findings on the consequences of anger,
E
8
9
uscholars assume that anger operates in the same way across contexts (see Romani et al., 2013,
10
11 r
12 p. 1038). Academics disagree on how the emotion affects customer-company relationships.
13 o
14 While some consider anger as a destructive motivation of vindictiveness (Grégoire et al.,
15 p
16
2010; Wetzer et al., 2007), others see anger as a warning signal highlighting problems that
e
17
18
corporations cana address while not implying a willingness to hurt the company (Bennett,
19
20
n
1997; Kalamas et al., 2008; Romani et al., 2013). Both interpretations can be right. Failing to
21

22
23 recognise the intrinsic varJiability of anger experiences leads to overlooking the possibility
24
25 that anger can have both posoitive and destructive consequences depending on the type of
26
27 u
anger activated.
28
r
29
30 This imprecise conceptualisation is reflencted in flawed measurement tools proposed in the
31
32 a
literature. Practitioners, armed with academic scales purportedly measuring “anger” (e.g.
33 l
34
35 Laros and Steenkamp, 2005; Romani et al., 2012), can assess the emotional reactions of their
36 o
37 customers to different stimuli. Their responses to feelinfgs of anger, however, will often be
38
39
flawed because based on the assumption that anger activates the same goals in all contexts. If
40
M
41
they follow the advice of those who see anger as always destructive, at least some of the time,
42 a
43
r
44 they will waste resources on compensations for consumers who had no intentions of leaving
45
k
46 the brand. Conversely, if they conceive anger as a constructive social emotion, they might
47 e
48 misinterpret serious relational threats as relatively minor issues. t
49 i
50
51 P1: Experiences of anger vary in terms of the 1) motivational goals activatend, 2)
52
53 g
intensity, 3) appraisals and 4) consequences on the relationship between the firm
54
55
and its consumers.
56
57
58
59
60 8
Page 9 of 54 European Journal of Marketing
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
E
8
9
u
10
11 r
12 Problem-focused and vengeful anger
13 o
14
15 In vengefpul anger the motivational goals activated by the emotion (Lazarus, 1991; Roseman
16
e
17
et al., 1994) create a desire to “get even” with the firm. In these circumstances, personal costs
18
a
19
and benefits become secondary and the desire to hurt the perceived culprit dominates
20
n
21
personal motives (Bechw ati and Morrin, 2003; Fehr and Gӓchter, 2002). The second form of
22
23 J
24 anger is instead based on the activation of problem-focused goals: consumers want to relieve
25 o
26 the frustration caused by a thwarted objective and remain focused on the outcome (Fischer
27 u
28
and Roseman, 2007; Scherer, 1988). r
29
30 n
The difference between the two types of anger rests on whether the negative outcome is
31
32 a
33 perceived as a breach of rules that are so impolrtant to deserve punishment and retribution
34
35 (Carlsmith et al., 2002; Fehr and Gӓchter, 2002). If a company is exploiting basic social
36 o
37 f
norms of cooperation, individuals’ motives are affected and concern for personal interests is
38
39
supplanted by a desire to punish the culprit to re-establish a sense of justice (Carlsmith et al.,
40
M
41
2002). Retribution can be motivated by concern for the harm caused (Carlsmith, 2008) or by
42 a
43
r
44 a perceived affront to personal integrity (Yamagishi et al., 2009).
45
k
46 The notion that anger can be both constructive and destructive is consistent with
47 e
48 t
psychological theory (Averill, 1982; Fischer and Roseman, 2007; Tiedens et al., 2002). The
49 i
50
fact that one type can morph into the other easily makes identification difficult (Geddes and
51 n
52
53 Callister, 2007; Russell and Fehr, 1994). Furthermore, although the differences ing goal
54
55 activation are associated with patterns of appraisals, intensity and expression, such variations
56
57
emerge from the evidence but they are not necessary (see Van Mechelen and Hennes, 2009).
58
59
60 9